Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1 (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, June 25, 2022, 08:08 (671 days ago) @ David Turell

According to David, his combination of evolutionary theories “makes sense only to God”.

DAVID: What that means is I trust that God knows what He is doing. That makes total sense since I fully believe God created the history we have.

dhw: If God exists, of course it makes total sense to assume that he knows what he is doing. That doesn’t mean that what he is doing is what you say he is doing, or his purpose is what you say is his purpose, or that what he is doing has to be incomprehensible to us humans! If you find your own theories senseless, maybe they are wrong.

DAVID: Please remember I don't find my theories senseless. […]

When you tell me you can’t explain your combination of evolutionary theories and I should go and ask God, and your theories “make sense only to God”, I’m afraid the inevitable conclusion is that they don’t make sense to you – unless you happen to be God in disguise, which I very much doubt. (See “mud” in Part Two for more details.)

dhw: And so you do not believe in common descent, as I have defined it.

DAVID: I emphatically do not.

dhw: If life forms appear that are not directly descended from earlier life forms (i.e. they have no precursors), then there can be no common descent. So please give us your definition of common descent if you disagree with mine.

DAVID: Evolution is based on advancing biochemistry with gaps in form by the designer of evolution.

dhw: This is not a definition of common descent! All “evolutionary changes” must be biochemical, regardless of whether they evolved from generation to generation, were designed by intelligent cells, or were separately programmed/dabbled by your God, and if “gaps in form” means separate creation (as above), then there is nothing left of the theory of common descent!

DAVID: But it is common descent as we now see it to be. Aside from the Cambrian we still see comparative anatomy as evidence of common descent from ancestral forms. Most speciation has past form as part of it.

Thank you for confirming Darwin’s theory as supported by the evidence of comparative anatomy. But you have your God designing every species individually (not to mention every econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder), and you have him designing Cambrian species with no precursors. The latter is the exact opposite of common descent. The former might just as well be the belief of a creationist.

Octopus
DAVID: this study shows the availability of certain genes for direct use can create convergence. My point is simple: once useful biochemistry is developed/evolved, it can then be used in many new parallel developments, and certainly gaps in phenotypes.

Parallel developments would refer to convergence. Otherwise, you are repeating my own argument: evolution progresses through new uses of existing materials. “Common descent”, however, does not mean “gaps in phenotypes”.

DAVID: This view of common descent is not Darwinian, since he knew nothing about biochemistry. Remember, comparative anatomy shows common descent.

Comparative anatomy was precisely the bedrock of Darwin’s theory, which you keep pooh-poohing, all because we do not have a complete fossil record of every species and every transition. Convergence makes perfect sense, as intelligent organisms will find similar solutions to similar problems. Once again, if you do not accept my definition of common descent as “all life forms except the first are directly descended from earlier life forms”, please give us your own definition.

dhw: I also find it perfectly reasonable to suppose that intelligent cells (possibly designed by your God) would be able both to adapt and to exploit new conditions extremely rapidly, even from one generation to the next. In some cases, their very survival (adaptation) would depend on their doing so, whereas in others (exploitation leading to innovation) the process might be more gradual, as each generation improves on the work of its predecessor.

DAVID: Sticking with generations making new species in itty-bitty steps.

dhw: […] there are no itty-bitty steps: I am proposing extremely rapid adaptation AND exploitation (=innovation), even from one generation to the next.[But improvements may be itty-bitty.]

DAVID: Remember, what the gaps show us is not generational change, which by definition must be tiny steps of change. Generational change means an adaptation within the same species.

Nobody knows how speciation happens. I have no idea where you get your definition of “generational change” from. According to you, your God performs operations on existing organisms to give them flippers instead of legs, or bigger brains than they had before they went to sleep. If a generation can change its structure in order to adapt, how do you know it can’t do the same in order to innovate? The gaps don’t show us anything. That’s why they are gaps. Some would say there are gaps because fossilization is the exception, not the rule.